Pardon, I do realize everyone remembers CGI, but sometimes it's important to review the basics, especially when optimized variants are more popular than the original (but have by no means eliminated it).
Classic CGI has its advantages. It's simple to implement and memory leaks in individual instances don't matter. Embedded devices still use it quite a lot. Classic CGI is also an interesting transitional strategy when you're replacing a mixed bag of Perl, C and other CGI programs. Making it harder to transition to PHP isn't good for PHP. This is the "Common" part of CGI and shouldn't be forgotten. At any rate, it doesn't make sense to deliver a SAPI for "CGI" on Unix platforms that doesn't do shebang paths and therefore doesn't actually work in a classic CGI environment. Call it "PGI" if you must delete that feature. On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 9:22 AM, Marco Tabini<mar...@tabini.ca> wrote: >> It would be really nice if everyone could consider that the other do >> understand what is being discussed but actually disagree. The question >> was actually: is it worth the effort? Who is seriously using CGI (not >> meaning fastcgi) with php these days? > > On shared hosts, CGI is often the only way to have your own custom version > of PHP. I don't know if that's relevant to this conversation, though :-) > > > Mt. > -- Tom Boutell P'unk Avenue 215 755 1330 punkave.com window.punkave.com -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
